Daniel Schoonover's Answer, Sep 1839

Provided by Patt Seitas

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
Underlined ___ spaces indicate missing or illegible text.
Brackets [ ] indicate transcriber's comments.


Answer of Daniel Schoonover 25 Sep 1839

[Page 1]

The seperate Answer of Daniel Schoonover, to the bill of Alfred Beauchamp filed against him and others in Lewis County Circuit Court, -

This Respondant for answ____ to the said bill saith, that his codefendant, William Schoonover purchas____ goods of the Complainant, and he with John & Solomon Schoonover as sureties for the said William executed to the compt the bond on which judgment was recovered against the personal representatives of the said Solomon - William bein_ the principal debtor ought to pay said debt, and if it shall so happe_ that the personal or real esta__ of the said Solomon shall be made pay said judgment, then this Respt prays that the joint intere__ of the said William in the estate of Solomon devised by Solomon to William and this Respt be made first liable to pay said debt - William's moiety of the lands devised by Solomon will be sufficient to pay the debt of Compt and that moiety ought to be first subjected as the debt is William__ own debt & Solomon was his sure__. This Respondant for further Answer saith, he admits the

[Page 2]

execution of the bond mentioned and that judgment was recovered at the time and for the amount stated in the bill - He admits that the said Solomon died having first made his will as stated in the bill and that the will was duly admited to probate - That the widow of Solomon died intestate without children as stated in the bill, and that this Respt claims as devisee under Solomon's will, what is therein devised to him - and that this Respt & the said William are now in possession of the land so devised by Solomon -- He admits that Hezekiah Stout was appointed Admr with the Will annexed as stated in the bill, and that the said Stout made out and returned the inventory filed with the bill, but this Respondant saith that he and his brother William reside out of Lewis County, and did not know how said Stout was acting in his official character until this day, when he for the

[Page 3]

first time saw the inventory & sale bill filed -- He had heard that Stout had settled all the business & had paid all the debts - Respt came into Lewis County a few days since, to look over the proceedings of the admr & then he discovered that this suit was prosecuting, which called his attention directly to the accounts of the admr as filed, and he feels satisfied that the said Stout has not properly administered the personal estate - He has not rendered a correct inventory of the assetts - He has omited to render a full account of a lot of hoggs left by said Solomon, except he has inventoried three hogs there were other hoggs, which ought to be charged to him - & perhaps other property - And this respondt insists, that the settlement made by him with the Court ought not to ____ the devisees it is materially unjust and injurious to their interest, unfair and this Respt believes fraudulent. The allowance of a credit of $50

[Page 4]

for "Doctors bill" ____ for this Respt saith that he made a contract with Dr. Barnes to attend his brothers wife in her sickness - by which contract Barnes agreed with this Respt to charge nothing for his attendance on the widow if he did not cure her - after her death ___ Barnes made out a bill against this Respt not exceeding seven dollars, and presented to Respt in Kenawha County where this Respt lives, & which bill this Respt did not pay, Barnes ____anted Respt for his bill, it was ____ & Respt ____ Barns - And as to a Dr Bill for attending the said Solomon no allowance ought to have been made - for in truth this Respt does not admit, that any physician attended him - he has no knowledge of any such medical services & he has heard none attended the said Solomon Respt therefore insists that the item of $50 aforesaid ought to be disallowed -- As to the item of $25 for attendance and nursing the widow - that item is surely too high, for the widow did not require nursing, more than a

[Page 5]

few days, and the item for such services is not properly and legally chargable against the estate Respt saith the item of $3 paid Crier of the sale is unjust, as also $2 to the Clerk - One day only was employed in that business, and one dollar per day for each is not less than the customary charge for such services -
The item of $22-76 paid Cline Collins is not allowable it is for costs of a warrant before a justice of the peace - The admr unnecessarily and improperly sued Collins - he ought not to have prosecuted such a suit & was imformed before he sued that he could not recover, yet he incurred $22-76 costs on the warrant, which he ought not to have incurred - As to the item of $17-53 paid James Schoonover - James Schoonover held a note upon Solomon for $5 or $__ which Stout ought to have paid, yet he obstinately and improperly suffered himself to be sued & incured the residue of that item as costs - So much of that item as is made up of costs ought to be rejected -

[Page 6]

As to the ____ item of $24-01 paid Sheriffs & Clerks fees it may or may not be correct - Respt saith that owing to his absence from Lewis County & residence in Kenawha, & having just seen said accounts, and being bound to answer said bill without an opportunity of a more full enquiry into the administration of said estate he verily believes the said accounts can & ought to be ____ and falsified in many other particulars & he prays to be allowed so to do before a Master Commissioner - Respt has been informed that the two beds left by Solomon were ____ large feather beds & beding that the admr has so managed it that when they were appraised, he had

[Page 7]

turned one or both of them into straw beds - whether this information is correct - Respt does not know - it may or may not be so - he hopes the Commissioner may be permitted to hear proof thereof - Resp.t has been informed that the item of $10-25 paid for coffin & diging grave for Solomons wife is unjust - he learns from ther neighbours that some of them freely made the coffin dug the grave & burried her without intending to charge any thing for it, & he does not believe the Admr has paid any thing therefor - The man who made the coffin informs this Respt that he did not charge for it - nor has he recd any pay therefor - Under all these circumstances so unfavourable to the ____ of the accounts rendered this Respt hopes this cause will be refered

[Page 8]

to a commissr to ____ & settle the said Administration & be allowed to scrutinise the whole proceedings of the Admr closely - and if it shall be found that he is in arrears, that a decree will be rendered against him for any balance due from him - ________

Daniel Schonover
Mr[?] A Harrison
Defts Atty

Lewis County to wit --
This day Daniel Schoonover made oath before me a Justice of the peace for said County, that his foregoing answer is true to the best of his belief

Sworn to 25 Sept 1839
Weeden Huffman J.P.


Return to the Beauchamp vs. Schoonover index